Tan Ming Quan

Tan Ming Quan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2020 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in employment law and unincorporated associations.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated expertise across 28 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Trusts and Estates	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Unincorporated Associations	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ming Quan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Ming Quan has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
BR Law Corporation	1 cases	100% of cases	Singapore Recreation Club v Abdul Rashid: Unauthorised Bonuses & Wrongful Dismissal(Jul 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Ming Quan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Ming Quan's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Singapore Recreation Club v Abdul Rashid: Unauthorised Bonuses & Wrongful Dismissal 27 Jul 2020 Singapore Recreation Club (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim)Lost	27 Jul 2020	Singapore Recreation Club (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim): Claims DismissedAll claims against Abdul Rashid Mohamed Ali and Goh Kok Guan were dismissed.